HOTEL ALLIED TRADES PVT. LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

In the result, we dismiss the IT Appeal by answering the

Bench: Us, The Appellant Raises The Following Questions Of Law:

7 of 2023 5 depreciation would be allowable to the assessee. The Ld. AO is directed to allow depreciation on this expenditure. The asessee is directed to provide requisite details. This ground stand partly allowed.” 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would point out that the Appellate Tribunal merely went by the Explanation-1 to Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

7 (1989 3 SCC 329 ITA No.44/2017 -13- for business purpose irrespective of what may be the result of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed." Actual cost of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36(1)(iii). The proviso inserted in section 36(1)(iii) by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR vs. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

depreciation claimed by the assessee on current securities. (b) In interfering with the disallowance of broken period interest in respect of securities purchased. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the specific provision of Section 40A(7

THE COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX vs. P T L ENTERPRISES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

depreciation of previous years. The AO processed the return under Section 143(1) on 25.3.2002. The assessment was re-opened under Section 148 and assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was ITA No.1256 of 2009 3 completed on 16.12.2004 determining the total income of Rs.1,88,38,380/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation and is not the same against law and the intendment of the legislature? 5. The issue relates to the entitlement of assessee to claim

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. vs. M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD., KALAMASSERRY

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation and is not the same against law and the intendment of the legislature? 5. The issue relates to the entitlement of assessee to claim

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

7. Substantial Question Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the controversy in reopening the assessment and whether the circumstances now stated by the AO come within jurisdiction of AO for reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Substantial Question Nos.3 to 5 relate to whether the lease rental received by the assessee for the subject assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

7. Substantial Question Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the controversy in reopening the assessment and whether the circumstances now stated by the AO come within jurisdiction of AO for reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Substantial Question Nos.3 to 5 relate to whether the lease rental received by the assessee for the subject assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

7. Substantial Question Nos. 1 and 2 refer to the controversy in reopening the assessment and whether the circumstances now stated by the AO come within jurisdiction of AO for reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Substantial Question Nos.3 to 5 relate to whether the lease rental received by the assessee for the subject assessment

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

section 260A of the Act. 6. We heard Senior Advocate Joseph Markose instructed by Adv. Sharad Joseph Kodianthara, on behalf of the I.T.A. No.272/13 -:6:- assessee and the Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the Department. 7. Appellant had entered into the foreign exchange forward contract with Citi Bank in January 2006. The purpose for which the loan

M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed and remanded with the observations as

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

depreciation is not allowable on the value of the undivided share right and interest in the land held as inseparable from the apartments? 6. Mr Joseph Markose contends that the Tribunal fell in a serious error of fact and law, which are very substantial in nature ITA Nos.62/2020, 66/2020 -9- in assuming that the assessee has collected the service

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REENA JOSE

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT.GRACY BABU,

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JOSE THOMAS

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

7 persons) together had completed the construction in the F.Y. 2010-11 as evidenced by clause 2 of the agreement dated 01/06/2010 for a total amount of Rs.9.68 crores and vide clause 3 of the said agreement it was agreed to appropriate the contract amount from the amount already paid to the parties. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

depreciation by treating the expenditure as capital expenditure. 6. Per contra, Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham argues that the crucial aspect in determining the expenditure is the nature of investment or utility derived by the assessee. It is stated, it is one aspect of the matter to state that the existing showroom has been refurbished by changing the interiors

PTL ENTERPRISES LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

7. Both assessee, as well as the department, appealed to the Tribunal. By the order impugned, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the revenue and dismissed the cross-appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the rental income has to be assessed under the head “income from other sources” since the assessee had no intention to revive